Cloud Atlas
discussion
Movie Better With Or Without Reading the Book?
I have to imagine the film must have seen a jumbled and confusing mess to those unfamiliar with the story lines. I admired the complexity of the movie, but didn't think it quite worked. Much preferred the book, myself.
i read the book 11 years ago, i remember being impressed but the only plot line i really recalled was Somni. The film was wonderful, it wove comedy, tragedy and action so perfectly and the musical score was one of the best I have heard in a long timeGreat book, wonderful movie. I think they complement each other well
Both movie and book complement each other.
I am curious if the dialogue during the Sloosha's Crossin' segments landed at all with a viewer who had not read the book. I admired the bravery of keeping the slang, I bristled at Tom Hanks' miscasting as Zachry and the boring decision to turn it into a love story.
@Sandyboy and TonyI have to agree - I really do believe the two complimented each other well. It obviously wasn't a straight adaptation, but I thought they did it as well as they could in trying to appeal to a mass audience while staying (mostly) true to the book.
@Paul
You're absolutely right - it took a ton of courage to keep that dialogue in there! I didn't think Tom Hanks was cast correctly at first, but he won me over because, well, he's Tom Hanks.
I don't think you need to read the book to understand the movie. I saw it with others who had not read and they loved the film, understood it.However, it's certainly augmented if you have read it.
I think the book and movie went hand and hand. I read the book before seeing the movie, while my boyfriend did not, and the whole duration of the movie he was leaning over to me asking questions about this or that. That is also my theory of why the movie didn't do so well in theatres; despite all the star power they had.
I haven't read the book yet, but I did see the movie. It was very confusing for almost the entire first half. I want to see it again because it was intriguing and mesmerizing, but I think I'll read the book first so I can fill in the blanks I was obviously missing.
@Kenley - I'm not surprised to hear it didn't do well in the theaters. I personally had to wait for it on DVD due to two small children at home and little time to get out. I digress. It took a certain level of patience and flexibility that I'm not sure the average movie-goer is willing to exert. I've been trying to talk it up to my friends, though, so that the movie gets the attention it deserves. (Did I mention it moved into my top five?)
@Jeni - I'm really interested to hear your take on the book *after* seeing the movie first. I'm glad I read the book, but I wouldn't say it was an easy read for me and I certainly didn't enjoy it during the read. I loved the book once finished, though. I think seeing the movie first would have given me a much-needed point of reference for the more difficult sections.I hope you'll update us as you read it!
I will do my best to get back here and give an updated assessment. Having said that, I really liked the movie once I got the "groove," so to speak. I hope the book doesn't disappoint!
Book is better. Not just a collection of tired love stories like the movie.
The movie, even with its failings, was a huge departure from what Hollywood audiences are used to. It's not anything like the Michael Bay fare with explosions to distract you from the complete lack of character development, neon plot summary flashing here and there for those that weren't paying attention because they were on their mobiles texting. Cloud Atlas, not being like this at all, could not universally appeal and I expected it to have a lackluster reception. Nothing that universally appeals is worthy of history, because it is too vanilla, too safe, too unambitious.
I loved the book, and likewise the film. I thought the film was about as perfect an adaptation as they could get made, excepting the risky move of making Zachry Tom Hanks. I was skeptical at first, but they won me over both with how they handled it as an important step in their reincarnation theme and because, as was said above, it's Tom Hanks.
Making Hanks the reincarnation makes no sense, though. The thing that each incarnation has in common is that they free people, from literal slaves in the case of Adam Ewing, information in the case of Luisa, the imprisoned aged with Cavendish. Meronym is the freedom giver in Sloosha's Crossin', not Zachry. And by making him middle aged instead of a teen the story loses the family dynamics that drove the plot, and it loses the parallels to Huckleberry Finn.
A fair point, I suppose...I was looking more at how the film chronicles his journey through his various incarnations from murderer to hero.
The book and movie are both pretty complex. I saw the movie first and that led me to the book.First the movie- I followed the flow of the story pretty well and loved the screenplay too! But I never understood the finer details until I gave it another viewing with subtitles. I felt it was one of those movies which rewards on repeated viewings and I'll definitely watch it again.
Now I had a very tough time reading the book and it took me sometime to get hooked to it. But needless to say it was worth the effort.
Its obviously very rare to see a movie do justice to it's source material. But I feel Cloud Atlas (the movie), though not perfect, did complete justice to the book and I couldn't have asked for anything better.
Edit: Oops I forgot to answer the question. :P
In conclusion, I think the movie is definitely a richer experience after reading the book. But reading the book is not compulsory to appreciate the movie.
@Paul - You are a passionate advocate of the novel - I love it! It's so refreshing to see people defend their favorite books both fervently and, more importantly, accurately. Thank you!I loved the movie, but it was certainly a departure from the novel in many, important ways, as Paul said. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the novel's sections weren't quite so overtly connected, whereas the movie went to great lengths to unify all of the story lines, even going so far as to suggest reincarnation. I don't think the novel actually implied reincarnation, did it?
I think the novel allowed for the possibility but left it intentionally vague for the reader to decide.
Thanks, Scott! I do love the book, and am probably being overly hard on the film. It is a gutsy movie that takes many chances, something to be encouraged in Hollywood. It just didn't quite reach the high bar it set for itself, in my opinion. I would be curious to see the book adapted as a miniseries at some point.
Reincarnation was very vaguely implied. Most overtly in the bit where Cavendish edits the implication out of the Luisa Rey manuscript.
I saw the movie first and felt compelled to read the novel. Strangely, I thought the movie helped me to understand the novel. I did think the movie "chopped" up the story line far more than the novel did. Nonetheless, I enjoyed both. I am currently reading The Son which has a similar plot structure dealing with multiple generation of one Texas family. I'm afraid that I might be getting used to this.
There is another movie that had famous actors in disguise made back in 1963 called The List of Adrian Messenger. One of the first things I thought about when I reached the end of the film.
If you read the book first you have to spend less time working out what on earth is going on and more time appreciating what a good job they actually did trying to film such a complex novel.If you see the movie first the risk is you end up too confused and frustrated with the whole thing, which would be a shame as the movie is great and the book brilliant.
Maru wrote: "If you read the book first you have to spend less time working out what on earth is going on and more time appreciating what a good job they actually did trying to film such a complex novel.If yo..."
I think that this is my impression as well.
Maru wrote: "If you read the book first you have to spend less time working out what on earth is going on and more time appreciating what a good job they actually did trying to film such a complex novel.If yo..."
I concur.
I thought the movie was a masterpiece (read the book first of course), but I know at least a dozen friends who have walked away from the film disgusted/confused from the lack of a linear plot structure. Can't say that I blame them; I just tell them to go back and give the movie a second chance if they ever happen to read the book, definitely helps.
The movie is impossible to watch without reading the book first. It's a decent film but really superfluous after the marvelously written book.
The movie is SO CONFUSING if you haven't read the book first. After you get past the confusion, you try to understand how they put the movie together. Honestly, I think it would've been a great movie if they had JUST focused on Mitchell's organization, which was sort of like a Russian nesting doll. If they copied how he put the book together it would have made much better sense.
The movie is a jumbled mess with a few great moments. The book is close to a classic. I'm not sure if reading it first improved my opinion of the movie or if it hurt it.
I would say that the movie is better with reading the book. The books gives more depth to the characters.
I didn't think the movie was confusing at all, and I watched it before reading the book.
I didn't think the movie was confusing at all, and I watched it before reading the book.
I saw the movie before reading the book and was not confused at all. But then I love non-linear storytelling.I equally enjoyed the book. While I think the more paced structure worked for in book form, I think the jumping between the stories worked better in the film.
I think this is because reading is more deliberative. You go at your own pace. Can stop and think about it. Flip back and re-read.
In the theater, you are constantly synthesizing meaning and drawing conclusions, at the film's pace and with no ability to go back and re-watch a scene (at least until you get the DVD). Even then, as an audience, you are experiencing a film through the mediation of the interpretation and performance of a the artists (actors, directors, cinematographers, musicians, etc); a book is all about the interaction of reader and the words.
You give the line readings. Can do your own different "takes" of readings. Your mind is the special effects team.
I don't think one or the other is "better" at telling a story, or even this story, they just have different strengths and appeals.
But, to the original question: I think the movie is better with having read the book. Just not in a particular order. I also think the book is better with having seen the movie, as the different choices made my the filmmakers illuminate Mitchell's choices as an author as well.
Robert wrote: "I saw the movie before reading the book and was not confused at all. But then I love non-linear storytelling.I equally enjoyed the book. While I think the more paced structure worked for in book ..."
Well said, Robert!
I saw the film first, and within the first 3 min I was in love. The film does a wonderful job of bringing the urgency out of each of the stories at once. This give it a kind of "time exists all at once" feel, which really complimented the circular nature of things. I have two chapters left in the book, and so far I think the two complement each other wonderfully.
Came across a used copy of the paperback (had previously read from the library) and a used copy of the DVD in the past few weeks.Guess it's time to revisit both again. This is truly becoming an engrossing world and one with rewards upon each visit.
I saw the movie first, and it helped me when reading the book as I'd the characters in my head already - you can debate whether or not that's a good thing. But, it made the reading a little easier.Both the movie and book are brilliant.
Read the book first. The movie doesn't not capture the intricacy of each story having its own backbone while still being connected to the greater story. I found the movie disappointing the first time I watched it, but re-viewed it minutes after finishing the book and loved it (except for the casting).
My husband and I saw the movie without having read the book first, and we loved it! A few months later I decided to read the book, and it was actually hard for me to go backwards. Part of the fun of the movie for me was seeing all the stories counterpointed against each other continually. The nested-shell structure of the book seemed tame by comparison. That said, I loved getting more time to spend with each of the characters in the book.
I agree with the people saying that the movie and the book are both excellent. I think it's really a stunning achievement that the film even got made at all!The book and the film are both fairly different, but I feel as thought the film did make some plot points a bit more coherent (Sonmi, for example) and I really loved the casting of Jim Broadbent as Timothy Cavendish. The book, however, really resonated with me somehow and I had similar feelings about it's scope and individuality as I did with the film.
I would say that reading the book first really helped me appreciate both of them more, and I think it's correct to say that it wouldn't have mattered which way round I'd done it. My fiancé still liked the film, but she didn't seem quite as gripped as I was.
Together, they have become books and films that I'd constantly recommend to people. Individually, I'm not suers they would have, but there's obviously no way to tell!
I read Cloud Atlas a year or so ago. Although I really liked it and was glad I had read it by the time I reached the end, it is not an easy read. I loved the voice changes and the way that all of the stories were woven together into a fabulous whole.I saw the movie when it came out and although I liked the movie, too, I think it would be very difficult to understand the stories without having read the book first.
Not beach reading, for sure!
Val wrote: "I watched and enjoyed the movie, then read and enjoyed the book."Me too. I actually thought the movie helped me understand the book at times.
I was glad I had reread the book before I watched the movie. I feel sure that I would have been left a bit confused in the movie without reading the book first.
I don't feel the movie approached the book's level of craft. It was a damn hard book to adapt, and ultimately I'm impressed the Wachowskis produced even a watchable adaptation. But where the novel effortlessly jumps between settings and styles, I felt the film struggled to keep up and lost some flavor in each of its worlds (The excellent Somni sections might be an exception).As the novel tries on different genres and writing styles, it would have been cool if the movie had plumbed film history for a greater breadth of techniques. But again, I'm impressed the film got made at all (and wasn't an enormous mess).
Jeni wrote: "I haven't read the book yet, but I did see the movie. It was very confusing for almost the entire first half. I want to see it again because it was intriguing and mesmerizing, but I think I'll rea..."Having read the book first, I turned the movie off 45 minutes in. It's poorly and confusedly put together, the performances by Tom Hanks (who I generally like) were poor, and they veered from the novel in ways that only deepened a sense of confusion.
Enjoy the read. It's one of my tops of all time.
Just saw the movie and I was very disappointed. The book was exciting and referred to many social issues that were absent in the film adaptation. What I did not like most and I think is indicative of the difference between the book and the movie was Sonmi's story: in the book, New Seoul had nothing to do with all this high-tech extravaganza and the Matrix-style battles on flying vehicles, and her story was so shortened that lost the best points, just like every other story, after all. If the book earns five stars, I give the movie just two. PS: This reincarnation thing finally leads to really bad makeup...
The book is 10 million times better. The movie is visually stunning and certain performances were brilliant but the movie was the pretty packaging while the book was the real deal. I worry that the movie's jumbled mess will turn people off David Mitchell's gorgeous prose. Read the book!
I read the book first and really enjoyed it. I had to wait for the movie to come out on DVD. While the movie does make linear sense, I missed the exploration of the character's past lives. I definitely feel the book added to the depth of the movie.
So much is made of difficulty of this book arising from it's structure and whether attempting to fashion a film from it was at all advisable, that David Mitchell's infectious joy in story telling sometimes gets lost.I'm sure that quality must be what attracted the film makers to it in the first place.
I think Mitchell in Cloud Atlas was striving to push that story telling ability onto another level as a 'modernist' exercise and was not entirely successful in the effort. I note that subsequent books of his have more conventional narrative structures.
Anyway, the book's better than movie. I think, like most others here, I would have found the film confusing without having read the book first. Given the time time constraints a film imposes this was inevitable. The jump cuts and abrupt changes in tone made it all a bit too jarring.
I read this on a suggestion from a bookstore friend. I tend to stick too much to fantasy "junk food" reading, so it was good to get out of my rut and enjoy something different. I don't mind a difficult structure as long as it is an intriguing story. The movie was a bit jarring, but I did like how it ended.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I recently viewed the movie and it shot right into my top five favorites of all time.
However, had I not read the book, I'm not certain I would have enjoyed the movie nearly as much.
I have to wonder, does one need to read Cloud Atlas to truly appreciate the film adaptation?